From now till Federer's retirement will his level be like Agassi when he was 32+?

[JRAJ1988]

I still see the near 32 year old Federer as a slam contender, back in the day I saw an older Agassi as a slam contender, multiple ATP title winner...

At this stage of Roger's career after 77 titles can he echo what Agassi did when he was 32-35? like remain in the top ten? win titles, get to slam finals?

I know I can't compare those two career wise but a comparison could be made regarding their later careers of constantly winning titles getting to finals post 32.

 

[ledwix]

I don't think so. Agassi didn't move as well, but he had more strength than Federer and could boss people around from the baseline with easy power as is necessary in today's game. Federer doesn't have as much consistent power, especially on the backhand, and tries to rely on touch skills, which work, but are also on the decline.

Federer is also less okay with being ranked #6-10, as the name he made for himself raised his standards by a lot and he gets mad when he's not at the top.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

If Federer is as hungry as Agassi was in his time, he will.

 

[gregor.b]

I still see the near 32 year old Federer as a slam contender, back in the day I saw an older Agassi as a slam contender, multiple ATP title winner...

At this stage of Roger's career after 77 titles can he echo what Agassi did when he was 32-35? like remain in the top ten? win titles, get to slam finals?

I know I can't compare those two career wise but a comparison could be made regarding their later careers of constantly winning titles getting to finals post 32.

1. Only if he gets fitter.
2. Only if he meets the big 3 and they have a bad day.
3. Only if the kids are healthy at that tournament, or he is toast.

Fwiw, no he cannot emulate the A train. Tennis has changed. People don't want to have fun any more. They are professional athletes ( at the top level). Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess, if you have fun, it it is seen as being weak.

Instead of being human.

What a travesty.

 

[tudwell]

I think he'll definitely challenge for and even win slams for another two or three years.

 

[Smasher08]

If Federer is as hungry as Agassi was in his time, he will.

This. At this stage of someone's career, it's all about motivation. Conditioning takes more work, wins aren't as easy as they once were, your body needs more recovery time, physical issues from years of daily grind on the tour come up more often, and your reaction time may have declined by a few hundredths of a second.

Agassi was still hungry, Connors was always fired up. If Fed still has that kind of passion, no reason he can't still contend for every tournament he enters.

 

[wangs78]

1. Only if he gets fitter.
2. Only if he meets the big 3 and they have a bad day.
3. Only if the kids are healthy at that tournament, or he is toast.

Fwiw, no he cannot emulate the A train. Tennis has changed. People don't want to have fun any more. They are professional athletes ( at the top level). Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess, if you have fun, it it is seen as being weak.

Instead of being human.

What a travesty.

It's true. Tennis has reached a new degree of professionalism. Players go about their training and fitness like robots, it's insane. People like to talk about how the 80s and 90s were a strong era, but that's BS. All those guys were clowns compared to today's players. I'm not saying they were less talented, but they were less fit and less able to play at ridiculously high levels like today's top players are. In a way, I can see men's tennis having a sort of collective burnout soon.

 

[mattennis]

Agassi took the ball earlier than anyone, on the rise, and he would always take command of the points, he didn't have to run much (if he was clearly behind in a given point, he would just let the ball pass him).

He had the best ball control on forehand-backhand combined, possibly of all players ever.

That is why he was able to defeat top players when he was 32, 33, 34 and 35. He had that much control of his groundstrokes and hit it that early, that he didn't need to run much. He had the perfect combination of power, control and hitting on the rise groundstrokes.

Federer's game is totally different. Federer's game is more complex, he is overall more complete as a player, he does many different things and his variety has always been his main weapon. He is also much faster than Agassi, and moves way better than Agassi, but Federer's game really NEEDS his great movement on the court.

Federer could never be as successful as Agassi was playing Agassi's game. Agassi was a privileged, a real gifted player, that could play and win like that, controling the points and making the rival run all day long, whereas he could just stay there in the center of his baseline.

Federer can be as successful as Agassi was in his 30s, but Federer will need to conserve his great movement to be that successful, and that won't be easy when you are 32, 33, 34, 35 (all players lose a step or two in their 30s, even the fastest and greatest movers; Agassi's great advantage was that, for his special type of gameplan and talents, that was not a big problem for him).

 

[Marius_Hancu]

better: he's not bald

 

[BreakPoint]

I still see the near 32 year old Federer as a slam contender, back in the day I saw an older Agassi as a slam contender, multiple ATP title winner...

At this stage of Roger's career after 77 titles can he echo what Agassi did when he was 32-35? like remain in the top ten? win titles, get to slam finals?

I know I can't compare those two career wise but a comparison could be made regarding their later careers of constantly winning titles getting to finals post 32.

Only if Federer switches to a smaller racquet than what he'd used for the last 10 years like Agassi did when he was in his 30's.

 

[jhhachamp]

He can play at as high a level as Agassi did, but it's unlikely he will be as successful, most notably due to the fact that there are 3 very dominant players on top of the game right now. When Agassi was that age, the field was weak.

 

[mattennis]

He can play at as high a level as Agassi did, but it's unlikely he will be as successful, most notably due to the fact that there are 3 very dominant players on top of the game right now. When Agassi was that age, the field was weak.

I don't think 2002-2006 was weaker than today. Today you have 31 years old David Ferrer at nº3 in the world and 35 years old Tommy Haas at 11º in the world.

I would even say that in 2002-2006 there was a higher number of dangerous players than today.

 

[mellowyellow]

I still see the near 32 year old Federer as a slam contender, back in the day I saw an older Agassi as a slam contender, multiple ATP title winner...

At this stage of Roger's career after 77 titles can he echo what Agassi did when he was 32-35? like remain in the top ten? win titles, get to slam finals?

I know I can't compare those two career wise but a comparison could be made regarding their later careers of constantly winning titles getting to finals post 32.

I think AA benefitted from that transition period of multi number one players and Ste of play not yet being completely homogenized due to the older players hanging aroud and the young ones not yet being developed. If he had the guys then as consistent as today top 8 his later years would not have been quite so glorious.

 

[Kalin]

Agassi was supremely consistent and, as many have said, had the game to keep opponents running from the first stroke, whether his own serve out wide or an aggressive return.

Roger should probably take a sheet out of Pete's notebook instead- try to serve aggressively and finish points earlier with all the risks that entails. Getting into baseline slugfests with the new generation of Princes of Push isn't going to end well for him despite all his finesse and beauty of strokes.

 

[TomT]

I still see the near 32 year old Federer as a slam contender, back in the day I saw an older Agassi as a slam contender, multiple ATP title winner...

At this stage of Roger's career after 77 titles can he echo what Agassi did when he was 32-35? like remain in the top ten? win titles, get to slam finals?

I know I can't compare those two career wise but a comparison could be made regarding their later careers of constantly winning titles getting to finals post 32.

I think that if Federer is so inclined, then he is the sort of player and person who could remain in the top ten (or at least top 15) even beyond the age of 35. But, as has been mentioned, Federer does not seem at all happy with being at lower than the top, and he knows better than anybody that his days at the top are over. It will be interesting to see how the rest of his tennis career unfolds. I really hope that he loves the game and competition enough to stay on the tour until he's, say, 40 ... no matter what his ranking. I really think that his tennis and personal and training habits are sufficient to keep him in, say, the top 20 to that age.

 

[cc0509]

I still see the near 32 year old Federer as a slam contender, back in the day I saw an older Agassi as a slam contender, multiple ATP title winner...

At this stage of Roger's career after 77 titles can he echo what Agassi did when he was 32-35? like remain in the top ten? win titles, get to slam finals?

I know I can't compare those two career wise but a comparison could be made regarding their later careers of constantly winning titles getting to finals post 32.

I am skeptical about it based on what I have seen from Federer in the past year.

 

[TomT]

I am skeptical about it based on what I have seen from Federer in the past year.

Yeah. Unfortunately, you might be right. When the game of a player at that level has declined enough that even somebody like me can notice it, then that doesn't bode well for that player's future prospects.

Then again, Federer has the heart and mind of a champion. Tough to keep those sorts down. They tend to find a way to win, because they're willing to do what it takes, and smart enough to learn and know just exactly what it will take.

 

[dominikk1985]

fed is not in his prime anymore but he is still a lot better than old Agassi (at least if his back is healthy).

he is just facing better opponents than old Agassi did, those late 90s to early 00s were a very weak period.

if old Agassi had to face nole, murray and nadal he would not win much.

of course fed also lost to lesser Players this year but I mostly blame this to his back Problems. till Age 30 he basically had no injuries (which meant that he was very consistent with almost no drop off from 03 to early 10 with the exeption of early 08) but now his Body is starting to bother him.

if he is fit still only nole, nadal and murray can beat him...

 

[mellowyellow]

I agree, week in week out having 3 great players in the semi or final makes winning hard, in AA time there was nobody that did that week in week out. There were dangerous players but the consistency was not there.

 

[Top Jimmy]

fed is not in his prime anymore but he is still a lot better than old Agassi (at least if his back is healthy).

he is just facing better opponents than old Agassi did, those late 90s to early 00s were a very weak period.

if old Agassi had to face nole, murray and nadal he would not win much.

of course fed also lost to lesser Players this year but I mostly blame this to his back Problems. till Age 30 he basically had no injuries (which meant that he was very consistent with almost no drop off from 03 to early 10 with the exeption of early 08) but now his Body is starting to bother him.

if he is fit still only nole, nadal and murray can beat him...

That's funny, in 2005, the year before Agassi retired and Fed was entering or in his prime, he gave him a hell of a tough match at the US Open, won the second set and up a break in the third.

Not bad for a guy playing weaker competition.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

From now till Federer's retirement will his level be like Agassi when he was 32+?


Obviously not

it would mean he'll reach the US open final in 2016 :lol: simply impossible

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

fed is not in his prime anymore but he is still a lot better than old Agassi (at least if his back is healthy).

he is just facing better opponents than old Agassi did, those late 90s to early 00s were a very weak period.

Oh ok, well you got a point, another evidence that Federer played in a weak era :lol:

 

[the green god]

10 years from now, the new fanboy's will be saying this is the weak era.

 

[mellowyellow]

That's funny, in 2005, the year before Agassi retired and Fed was entering or in his prime, he gave him a hell of a tough match at the US Open, won the second set and up a break in the third.

Not bad for a guy playing weaker competition.

Is that the same open AA played Blake?

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Is that the same open AA played Blake?

yes, 7/6 in the deciding set

 

[jhhachamp]

I don't think 2002-2006 was weaker than today. Today you have 31 years old David Ferrer at nº3 in the world and 35 years old Tommy Haas at 11º in the world.

I would even say that in 2002-2006 there was a higher number of dangerous players than today.

David Ferrer is a very good player, I think he would have won a slam or two if he was playing in his prime in 2002. And I would not say that 2002-2006 was weak, more like 2000-2003. From 2004-2006, Federer was extremely dominant.

 

[jhhachamp]

That's funny, in 2005, the year before Agassi retired and Fed was entering or in his prime, he gave him a hell of a tough match at the US Open, won the second set and up a break in the third.

Not bad for a guy playing weaker competition.

This is stupid. Agassi was able to win slams during the period from 2000-2003 because the field was weak. Once Federer came along and started dominating, Agassi didn't win any more majors and Federer completely dominated Agassi. Agassi winning a set in one match doesn't mean jack.

 

[Beryl]

if he is fit still only nole, nadal and murray can beat him...

And Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro. Unless you think Federer hasn't been fit the last 3 years...

 

[NADALbULLS]

When Agassi was age 35 he won 3 straight five-setters at the US Open and took a 6-2 set off Federer in the final (and the 3rd set went to a tie-breaker). Federer will not even be close to Agassi's post-32 greatness. The only thing they'll have in common is that Agassi couldn't beat Nadal (Nadal 2-0 vs Agassi, including a match at Wimbledon and a match on hardcourt).

 

[Top Jimmy]

This is stupid. Agassi was able to win slams during the period from 2000-2003 because the field was weak. Once Federer came along and started dominating, Agassi didn't win any more majors and Federer completely dominated Agassi. Agassi winning a set in one match doesn't mean jack.

Lets see Fed at 35 play the world #1 in the US Open final and see if he wins a set and up a break in the 3rd.

And in theory, if 2005 was a weak era, then Fed won those titles in a weak era. If not, Agassi at the end of his career was getting to finals at 35 years of age against better competition which means his era must have been ridiculous.

 

[NADALbULLS]

Lets see Fed at 35 play the world #1 in the US Open final and see if he wins a set and up a break in the 3rd.

And in theory, if 2005 was a weak era, then Fed won those titles in a weak era. If not, Agassi at the end of his career was getting to finals at 35 years of age against better competition which means his era must have been ridiculous.

All very, very true.

 

[jhhachamp]

Lets see Fed at 35 play the world #1 in the US Open final and see if he wins a set and up a break in the 3rd.

And in theory, if 2005 was a weak era, then Fed won those titles in a weak era. If not, Agassi at the end of his career was getting to finals at 35 years of age against better competition which means his era must have been ridiculous.

Look at the head to head between Agassi and Federer after Federer reached his peak. Federer completely dominated Agassi and barely lost any sets. If Federer was 35 and played the #1 player 8 times, there is a good chance he might be able to challenge him in one of those matches.

 

[tennis_pro]

Agassi at 32+ still had some fuel in the tank, Federer not so much.

Agassi at 32 had as many matches under his belt as Federer at 28-29.

 

[NADALbULLS]

Look at the head to head between Agassi and Federer after Federer reached his peak. Federer completely dominated Agassi and barely lost any sets.

Agassi and Federer met at 2004 Indian Wells-
4-6, 6-3, 6-4

Agassi and Federer met at the 2004 US Open QF-
6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3

Agassi and Federer met at the 2005 US Open final (after Agassi won THREE 5-setters just to reach the final)-
6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1

So that is a VERY old/injured Agassi still taking sets off prime Federer.

 

[NADALbULLS]

Agassi at 32 had as many matches under his belt as Federer at 28-29.

Have you got the stats for that comparison? Because even though Agassi skipped some tournaments, he was an early-bloomer, so he was going deep into a lot of tournaments during his teen years and was ranked 6th in the world in June 1988 (age 18 ). Federer didn't reach the top 7 until he was 21-years-old.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Lets see Fed at 35 play the world #1 in the US Open final and see if he wins a set and up a break in the 3rd.

And in theory, if 2005 was a weak era, then Fed won those titles in a weak era. If not, Agassi at the end of his career was getting to finals at 35 years of age against better competition which means his era must have been ridiculous.

So, you're looking at the twilight of their respective careers to determine their greatness? LOL :lol:
And don't worry at 30 RFederer already won a slam beating the #1 and #4 seeds back-to-back.

 

[Devilito]

Fed plays way more defence than Agassi did. Andre returned more aggressive and took control of a point at the first opportunity. Fed is more happy constructing points and playing defensive return games. That style of play will not pay dividends as he gets older. Haas has taken a small page out of Andre's book and is doing well at 35 due to playing aggressively. If Fed thinks he's going to clean up another slam or put together wins over the top 3 by grinding, he's totally delusional.

 

[jhhachamp]

Agassi and Federer met at 2004 Indian Wells-
4-6, 6-3, 6-4

Agassi and Federer met at the 2004 US Open QF-
6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3

Agassi and Federer met at the 2005 US Open final (after Agassi won THREE 5-setters just to reach the final)-
6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1

Again, I say big deal. Here's some other matches for you:

Miami - 6-4, 6-3
Dubai - 6-3, 6-1
Australia - 6-3, 6-4, 6-4
Masters Cup - 6-3, 6-0, 6-4

They played a total of 8 matches once Federer reached his prime, and in those 8 matches, Federer won a total of 20 sets to Agassi's 5. That's great that he was able to challenge him in a couple of matches, but I watched all of those matches and never really felt like he could actually pull it off and win one.

 

[Smasher08]

I love it when people use the career of Agassi as if it was either typical or generalizable.

His career was a non-stop yo-yo: from early bloomer to choker to success to inconsistency to resilience to floundering to rededication to finally realized potential to injuries.

Many argued at the time that his late success was, in part, the product of having quite a bit left in the tank following years of underachievement. There's a lot of truth to that, I think.

But if you're going to make that argument, you might as well also claim that the successful runs Connors had in the late 80s meant that the Becker-Edberg generation were "weak". And what does it say about the Sampras-Agassi generation if AA was still lording over his generational peers well into his 30s? It says that their generation was also weak.

Agassi is an all-time great. Federer too. Both recognized that in each other, even back in '04 and '05.

And if Federer's generation was "weak" -- a hilarious position asserted only by his haters and made entirely in hindsight -- then this current generation, clay included, is also weak. And every generation since 1950 is weak as well.

 

[Xemi666]

Higher, no?

 

[Boom-Boom]

I don't think so. Agassi didn't move as well, but he had more strength than Federer and could boss people around from the baseline with easy power as is necessary in today's game. Federer doesn't have as much consistent power, especially on the backhand, and tries to rely on touch skills, which work, but are also on the decline.

Federer is also less okay with being ranked #6-10, as the name he made for himself raised his standards by a lot and he gets mad when he's not at the top.

wow that was good insight, 26 ATP titles later

 

[mike danny]

This thread hasn't aged well. Let's see what these same people say about the terrible last 5 years.

 

[Milanez82]

Federer must be having a good time reading these threads
Good for motivation too

 

[Russeljones]

And Federer's been clean. Big difference.